ER-24 <br />1 finding of incompatibility would be "logically and legally indefensible." <br />2 Record 400. However, Neighbors fails to quote the hearings officer's finding <br />3 regarding EC 9.8320(13)(2009) in its entirety. While the hearings officer <br />4 concluded that findings of compliance with all of the applicable provisions of <br />5 EC 9.8320 would support a finding that the proposed PUD is reasonably <br />6 compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses, he also <br />7 adopted additional findings that conclude: <br />8 "The Hearings Official is also persuaded that the proposed co- <br />9 house will be compatible and harmonious for the following <br />10 reasons: 1) the development will be at the end of the street where <br />11 comparatively fewer property owners along Oakleigh Lane will be <br />12 affected visually, 2) the scale of the buildings, as the applicant <br />13 points out, are within the range of typical single family homes. <br />14 The applicant states that -the common house is similar in size to a <br />15 large home and the other buildings are similar to smaller single <br />16 family homes, _3) the proposed density is less than the maximum <br />17 and the proposed height is less than the maximum height allowed, <br />18 and 4) the proposed use is residential (as opposed to some <br />19 conditional use allowed in the zone). * * Record 401. <br />20 As Meadows points out, Neighbors do not acknowledge or challenge these <br />21 findings. Accordingly, Neighbors' challenge to the city's conclusion that the <br />22 proposed PUD satisfies EC 9.8320(13)(2009) provides no basis for reversal or <br />23 remand of the decision. See Protect Grand Island Farms v. Yamhill County, 66. <br />24 Or LUBA 291, 295-96 (2012) (to demonstrate that a local government adopted <br />25 a decision that is not supported by adequate findings, a petitioner should <br />26 address and as necessary assign error to all independent findings adopted in <br />27 support of a decision that a particular criterion is or is not satisfied). <br />28 In his third assignment of error, Conte argues that the hearings officer <br />29 improperly construed EC 9.8320(13)(2009) with regard to the compatibility of <br />Page 24 <br />000073 <br />